Karnataka High Court
Rangaswamy @ Thimma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.222 OF 2010
BETWEEN
RANGASWAMY @ THIMMA
S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/A NAGAVALLI
HEBBUR HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: JAGADEESHA B N, ADV., )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
------
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 & 401 CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.8.07 PASSED BY THE
P.O., FTC-V, TUMKUR IN CRL.A.NO.137/2006 AND THE ORDER
DATED 8.11.06 PASSED BY THE ADDL. C.J. (SR.DN.) & CJM.,
TUMKUR IN C.C.NO.920/2001 AND DIRECT THAT THE PETR.
BE ACQUITTED FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED AND CHARGED
AGAINST THE PETR.
2
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this criminal revision petition under Section 397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused is challenging order of his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC dated 8.11.2006 in C.C.No.920/2001 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tumkur, which has been affirmed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Tumkur in Crl.A.No.137/2006 by order dated 24.08.2007.
2. The brief facts which gave rise to this petition as under:-
On 5.1.2001, one Prasad-PW-1 lodged a complaint before N.E.P.S police station, Tumkur stating therein that a Sony company Tape Recorder fitted to his Tata Sumo bearing registration No.KA-06-M-8448 was stolen when Tata Sumo was parked in his residential compound of his house by some unknown persons. On the strength of his 3 complaint, Cr.No.4/2001 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. During the course of investigation, tape recorder was recovered from the possession of PW-2 Gangadhar, who inturn stated that he purchased the same from the accused for Rs.500/-. The same was seized under a panchanama and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PWs- 1 to 6 and marked Ex-P1 to P4, apart from M.O-1 Tape Recorder. The learned Magistrate upon hearing both the learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence placed on record by his order dated 17.11.2006 convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused challenged his conviction and 4 sentence in Crl.A.No.137/2006 on the file of Fast Track Court-V, Tumkur. The learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, while confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 379 of IPC, modified the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year, by his judgment dated 24.8.2007.
Questioning the legality and correctness of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this revision petition is preferred.
Heard the arguments. Perused the records.
3. As I have already stated, the prosecution has examined in all six witnesses as PWs-1 to 6. Out of the six witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-2 Gangadhar is the person to whom the accused sold the tape recorder- M.O.1 for Rs.500/-. He has spoken in his evidence that the accused sold M.O.-1 Tape recorder for Rs.500/- to him. When the accused was brought after arrest and showed to PW-2, he has identified the accused as the same person 5 who sold tape recorder M.O.1 to him. A suggestion made to him that in order to help the complainant, he has given false statement, has been denied. After recovery, tape recorder was shown to PW-1 Prasad who identified that it is his tape recorder fitted to his tata sumo. PW-3 Mahesh is stated to be the panch witness examined by the prosecution and he has identified his signature on spot panchanama at Ex-P1(AB). He has pleaded ignorance as to the other pancha and therefore he has been cross- examined to that effect. He has denied a suggestion made to him that the tape recorder was seized from the possession of PW-2 in his presence under panchanama- Ex-P2. PW-4 H.Ramachandraiah is the ASI of Tumkur N.C.P.S police station, who has spoken about the arrest of the accused. His evidence is that on 15.12.2000, while he was conducting raid in Tumkur alongwith other police constables near Science college at Tumkur by seeing them, one person started running. All of them chased and apprehended him and on enquiry, they found one tape 6 recorder in his possession and on further enquiry, he revealed that another tape recorder he has sold to PW-2. PW-6- is the pancha to the spot panchanama-Ex-P3, who has spoken having conducted spot panchanama and his thumb impression having been obtained. The evidence of PW-6 Mohammed Ameer -PSI of NCPS police station, Tumkur, would go to show that the accused was produced before him at about 2.00 p.m. and on enquiry, he disclosed regarding theft of tape recorder fitted to various vehicles including the vehicle in question belonging to PW-
1. After his arrest, presence of PW-2 was secured in the police station. Thus prosecution has proved the recovery of the tape recorder from possession of PW-2, which was sold to him by the accused. Thus the learned Magistrate upon proper appreciation of the evidence has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge though confirmed the order of conviction has reduced the sentence from three years to one year. It has not been challenged by the 7 State. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any illegalities or irregularities committed by the learned Sessions Judge. I do not find any good ground so as to call for my interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. There is no merit in the revision petition. Hence, criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-